Disposed

Sri Sadvik B S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2024WP/19244/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus for demolition of unlicensed construction by private respondents in a Koppa Taluk layout. The Grama Panchayath had issued a stop-construction notice; counsel stated further proceedings would follow as per law. The court disposed of the petition, requiring enforcement of the restraint and keeping contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with direction that R6 and R7 enforce the Annexure-'J' restraint while in operation; all contentions kept open.

Sri Sadvik B S Vs the State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:4452 WP No. 19244 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 19244 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SADVIK B.S., S/O SADANAND B.P., AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BEMMANE, BELLUR POST, N R PURA TALUK, CHIKMANGALUR DISTRICT - 577 127.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 3RD GATE, 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:4452 WP No. 19244 of 2023

¶17

THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING AUTHORITY, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING AUTHORITY, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶19

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KOPPA TALUK PANCHAYATH, TALUK OFFICE, KOPPA, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 126.

¶20

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BINTHRAVALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, BHINTHRAVALLI VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 127.

¶21

SRI. B.N. SURESHA, S/O NAGAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O OPP. BHARATH RICE MILL, KOPPA VILLAGE AND TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 127.

¶22

SRI. PRAKASH K.A., S/O K.G. ALEX, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT TALAMAKKI VILLAGE, KHANDYA ROAD, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 127.

¶23

SRI. ARUNA K.H., S/O HIRIYANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O TALAMAKKI VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 127.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:4452 WP No. 19244 of 2023

¶25

SRI. GANESH,

¶26

S/O K. S. NAGAPPA GOWDA, MAJOR, R/O TALAMAKKI VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 127.

¶27

S.P. RENUKARADHYA, S/O S.M. PANCHAKSHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT OPP. FIRE STATION, KUDURU, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 548.

¶28

MARULASIDDARADHYA B., S/O BASAVALINGAIAH N.P., AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O 4TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS ROAD, SIDDESHWARA NAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 203.

¶29

KURISHUMMUTIL COMPLEX SUN MOON GROUP, REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, KURISHUMMUTIL COMPLEX, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 127, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS I.E. RES NO.8 TO 13.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. ASHOK N. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7; SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R8 TO R14)

¶32

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO 7 AUTHORITIES TO TAKE ACTION FOR DEMOLISHING THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION PUT UP BY R8 TO 14, WITHOUT OBTAINING PLAN AND LICENSE FROM THE CONCERNED

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:4452 WP No. 19244 of 2023

¶35

AUTHORITIES IN SITE NO.17, 18, 27 AND 28 FORMED IN A LAYOUT CARVED OUT OF 2 ACRES 1 1/2 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY.NO.159/3 IN TALAMAKKI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT AND ETC.,

¶36

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 7 to take action for demolishing the illegal construction put up by respondent Nos.8 to 14 without obtaining plan and license from the concerned authority.

¶39

Statement of objections have been filed by

¶40

respondent Nos.8 to 14.

¶41

Learned counsel Sri. Ashok N. Nayak appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7 submits that respondent No.7 has issued a notice on 25.11.2021 at Annexure-'J' regarding the allegation made out by the petitioner and such notice having been issued to the private respondent Nos.8 to 14 is being proceeded with.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:4452 WP No. 19244 of 2023

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶45

the said notice has only imposed restrain regarding stoppage of construction and no further proceedings have been taken for demolition of the building. It is further submitted that in the further proceedings to be taken pursuant to Annexure-'J', as regards the complaint made out by the petitioner, the order at Annexures-'K' and 'L' also requires to be taken note of.

¶46

Learned counsel Sri. Ashok N. Nayak submits that pursuant to Annexure-'J', further proceedings as per law would be taken as notice is issued pursuant to the report of the Executive Officer dated 19.11.2021.

¶47

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off taking note of the stand made by the learned counsel Sri. Ashok N. Nayak appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.6 and 7.

¶48

As long as the restrain on the private respondents in terms of Annexure-'J' is in operation,

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:4452 WP No. 19244 of 2023

¶51

respondent Nos.6 and 7 is to ensure enforcement of such restrain.

¶52

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off . All

¶53

contentions including the contentions raised by respondent

¶54

Nos.8 to 14 are kept open.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

MCR

Sri Sadvik B S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sadvik B S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Federal Mogul Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt. Meena Vs the Commissioner

H Srinivasa Vs the Commissioner

Sri. H. Ramakrishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G Shamraj Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mr. Raghavendra R Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike